DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10, 24 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the dismounting position” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As a result, it is unclear what structures are being referred to, and the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claims 24 and 25 recites “the carbonation head” without previously introducing the carbonation head with a definite antecedent basis, such as “a carbonation head”. Because the claims fail to clearly establish what structure is being referred to, the scope of the claim is unclear, rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ring et al. U.S. PG Pub. No. 20130037969 A1, February 13, 2013 (hereinafter “Ring”).
Regarding claim 1, Ring discloses a carbonation machine comprising: a carbonation head (figure 1A, carbonation head assembly 130, paragraph 0032) with a bottle holder (figure 1A, prolonged clamp 250, paragraph 0032) with flexible prongs 255 which may be attachable to a bottle with water to be carbonated and inject carbon dioxide into the bottle; and a safety dual valve (figure 2B, double action safety valve 270, paragraph 0046) assembly comprising a first spring (figure 2A, spring 430) operated piston and a second spring (figure 2A, spring 440) operated piston (figure 2A, pin 275), for releasing excess pressure when the bottle is held by the carbonation head 130, wherein the first spring operated piston is configured to release excess pressure at a first pressure threshold level and wherein the second spring operated piston is configured to release excess pressure at a second pressure threshold level, wherein the first pressure threshold level is lower than the second pressure threshold level (paragraph 0004 and 0045).
Regarding claim 3, Ring discloses a spring provided to force the first spring (figure 2A, spring 430) operated piston and the second spring (figure 2A, spring 440) operated piston away from each other to hold the pistons in closed positions (figure 2A, pin 275, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 8, Ring discloses a pronged clamp 250 configured to hold a bottle. The pronged clamp 250 may be rotated and thus, constricting rib 668 (figure 7A and 7B) is shown in both a vertical and a rotated state (paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 11, Ring discloses a bottle holder in the form of a prolonged clamp 250 (figure 1A, paragraph 0032) configured to engage and lock bottle 170 by its bottle ring 171 (figure 1E, paragraph 0040-0041). The bottle ring extends circumferentially around the bottle spout and is captured beneath the prongs when the pronged clamp is constricted by the constricting ring 268 (paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 14, Ring discloses a carbonation head 130 for a carbonation machine with a bottle holder (figure 1A, prolonged clamp 250, paragraph 0032) configured to hold a bottle with water to be carbonated and inject carbon dioxide into the bottle; and a safety dual valve assembly (figure 2B, double action safety valve 270, paragraph 0046) comprising a first spring (figure 2A, spring 430) operated piston and a second spring (figure 2A, spring 440) operated piston (figure 2A, pin 275), for releasing excess pressure when the bottle is held by the carbonation head 130, wherein the first spring operated piston is configured to release excess pressure at a first pressure threshold level and wherein the second spring operated piston is configured to release excess pressure at a second pressure threshold level, wherein the first pressure threshold level is lower than the second pressure threshold level (paragraph 0004 and 0045).
Regarding claim 16, Ring discloses a carbonation head (figure 1A, carbonation head assembly 130, paragraph 0032), a spring provided to force the first spring (figure 2A, spring 430) operated piston and the second spring (figure 2A, spring 440) operated piston away from each other to hold the pistons in closed positions (figure 2A, pin 275, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 24, Ring discloses a safety dual valve (figure 2B, double action safety valve 270, paragraph 0046) assembly comprising a first spring (figure 2A, spring 430) operated piston and a second spring (figure 2A, spring 440) operated piston (figure 2A, pin 275), for releasing excess pressure when the bottle is held by the carbonation head 130, wherein the first spring operated piston is configured to release excess pressure at a first pressure threshold level and wherein the second spring operated piston is configured to release excess pressure at a second pressure threshold level, wherein the first pressure threshold level is lower than the second pressure threshold level (paragraph 0004 and 0045).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. U.S. PG Pub. No. 20130037969 A1, February 13, 2013 (hereinafter “Ring”), as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, in further view of Motzer U.S. Pub. No. 3916946 A, November 04, 1975 (hereinafter “Motzer”).
Ring is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Ring fails to disclose the first spring operated piston and the second spring operated piston of the safety dual valve assembly are coaxially movable. However, Motzer discloses two independently axially slidable control pistons arranged axially one behind the other in a housing. Each of the control pistons is preferably individually biased in a direction to close the valve by springs provided in the housing (Col. 1, lines 35-38, 46-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the safety dual valve assembly of Ring to incorporate coaxially movable pistons as taught in Motzer to provide improved pressure release control, thereby meeting limitations of claims 2 and 15.
Claims 4-5, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. U.S. PG Pub. No. 20130037969 A1, February 13, 2013 (hereinafter “Ring”) in further view of Herz U.S. Pub. No. 7210497 B2, May 01, 2007 (hereinafter “Herz”).
Ring is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Ring fails to disclose that an effective sealing area of the first spring operated piston is different than an effective sealing area of the second spring operated piston. However, Herz discloses a pressure relief valve in which the valve element engages two concentric sealing members defining different sealing areas, such that the effective diameter 96 of the first-stage seal 92 (figure 6) defines a first area over which fluid pressure is effective for lifting the poppet 100 from the first-stage seal 92. The effective diameter 98 (figure 5) of the second-stage seal 94(figure 6) defines a second area over which fluid escaping through the first-stage internal valve opening is effective for lifting the poppet 100 (figure 5) from the second-stage seal 94. The second area of the second-stage seal 94 is preferably larger than the first area of the first-stage seal 92 by a ratio of approximately 2 to 1 to provide for rapidly lifting the poppet 100 to release pressure accumulated within the housing 52 (col. 7, lines 22-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first and second spring-operated pistons of Ring with different effective areas as taught by Herz in order to obtain controlled staged pressure relief behavior, thereby meeting limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Ring fails to disclose the effective sealing area of the first spring operated piston and the effective sealing area of the second spring operated piston are defined by gaskets of different dimensions. However, Herz discloses that the effective sealing areas are defined by two seals 92 and 94 (figure 6) are formed of nitrile or fluorocarbon elastomers i.e. gaskets (col.6, lines 50-51), thereby defining effective sealing areas over which pressure acts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second spring-operated pistons of Ring with gaskets of different dimensions, as taught by Herz, in order to define different effective area and therefore achieve staged pressure relieve operation.
Regarding claim 20, Ring discloses the carbonation head 130 including a pronged clamp 250 configured to hold a bottle. The pronged clamp 250 may be rotated and thus, constricting rib 668 (figure 7A and 7B) is shown in both a vertical and a rotated state (paragraph 0069).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. U.S. PG Pub. No. 20130037969 A1, February 13, 2013 (hereinafter “Ring”), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Cohen et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20150040991 A1, February 12, 2015 (hereinafter “Cohen”).
Ring is relied upon as above
Regarding claim 6, Ring fails to disclose a burst disk protected valve configured to burst and release excess pressure at a third pressure threshold level that is higher than the second pressure threshold level. However, Cohen discloses burst disk (figure 2 - burst disk 80, figure 3A – burst disk 240, paragraph 0034 and 0039) configured to rupture whenever the pressure in valve 100 exceeds a set pressure point (paragraph 0035 and 0044). Thus, a release valve incorporating a burst disc which may be ruptured at a high pressure, may provide a backup solution for a safety valve when dealing with rising pressure during an uncontrollable carbonation process when, for whatever reason, the process continues past safe limits and when the regular release mechanism fails (paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a safety valve assembly of Ring with a burst disk protected valve as taught by Cohen in order to provide redundant over-pressure protection.
Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. U.S. PG Pub. No. 20130037969 A1, February 13, 2013 (hereinafter “Ring”) in further view of Hoare et al. U.S. PG Pub. 20140097549 A1, April 10, 2014 (hereinafter “Hoare”).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. and Herz, as applied to claim 17 above, in further view of Hoare et al. U.S. PG Pub. 20140097549 A1, April 10, 2014 (hereinafter “Hoare”).
Ring and Herz (for claim 19) are relied upon as limitation mapped and recited above.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Ring fails to disclose the carbonation machine further comprising an actuator for actuating the first spring operated piston and the second spring operated piston so that each of the pistons is forced to break a seal. However, Hoare discloses a carbonation device in which a motor or solenoid 204 (figure 13, paragraph 0070) actuates a dump or vent valve 203 (figure 13) having reciprocating piston 210. Hoare further discloses that the piston is mechanically driven by an actuator rod 212 to open and close a valve port, thereby forcing the piston to move away from the sealing arrangement and vent accumulated pressure (paragraph 0070-0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the safety dual valve assembly of Ring with the actuator mechanism of Hoare in order to mechanically override spring bias and force pistons to break seals for controlled pressure release.
Regarding claim 25, Ring fails to disclose an actuator for actuating the first spring operated piston and the second spring operated piston so that each of the pistons is forced to break a seal. However, Hoare discloses a carbonation device in which a motor or solenoid 204 (figure 13, paragraph 0070) actuates a dump or vent valve 203 (figure 13) having reciprocating piston 210. Hoare further discloses that the piston is mechanically driven by an actuator rod 212 to open and close a valve port, thereby forcing the piston to move away from the sealing arrangement and vent accumulated pressure (paragraph 0070-0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the safety dual valve assembly of Ring with the actuator mechanism of Hoare in order to mechanically override spring bias and force pistons to break seals for controlled pressure release.
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al., as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Powell U.S. PG Pub. 20060207049 A1, September 21, 2006 (hereinafter “Powell”).
Claim 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. and Herz, as applied to claim 20 above, in further view of Powell U.S. PG Pub. 20060207049 A1, September 21, 2006 (hereinafter “Powell”).
Ring is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Ring failed to disclose the rotatable carbonation head includes a convex back surface matching a concave surface of a stationary part of the carbonation machine. However, Powell discloses a rotatable joint in which a convex outer surface 82 (figure 9, paragraph 0035 and 0045) of a movable member is received within and mates with a concave recess 88 (figure 9) of a stationary member, thereby permitting rotational movement while maintaining alignment between parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the rotata1ble carbonation head of Ring with a convex back surface matching a concave surface of a stationary part as taught by Powell in order to provide a stable and self-aligning rotational interface.
Regarding claims 10, 22 and 23, Ring discloses a carbonation head 130 including a carbonation cam 325 (figure 4B, paragraph 0051-0052) positioned on interlocking gears 320 of the carbonation gear assembly. The cam is configured to move into engagement with a contact pin 275 (figure 4A) of a double action safety valve when the gears are rotated (paragraph 0052). The cam 325 present an initially retracted cam surface that progressively advances toward the contact pin 275 as the gears rotate, thereby providing a gradually advancing cam surface (paragraph 0053). The contact pin 275 forms a protruding portion of a spring-based piston assembly of the safety valve (paragraph 0043-0046). Engagement of the cam with the contact pin forces the piston to move against spring 430. Ring further teaches that the rotation of the carbonation head and the cam forces the contact pin to move the valve poppet against the spring bias to open the valve 270 and vent pressure (paragraph 0046), thereby breaking the valve seal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the same cam-piston interaction to force seal breaking during rotation for pressure release, since the same structural relationship and function are disclosed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. U.S. PG Pub. No. 20130037969 A1, February 13, 2013 (hereinafter “Ring”), as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Fahldieck U.S. PG Pub. 20120241407 A1, September 27, 2012 (hereinafter “Fahldieck”).
Ring is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 12, Ring fails to disclose the bottle holder comprises two substantially opposite arms, and wherein each arm includes a semi-annular indentation so that together the arms form the annular indentation. However, Fahldieck discloses two substantially opposite arms (figure 1, two clamp arms – 2 and 3, paragraph 0026) which can be pivoted on a mounting element 4. The clamp arms 2 and 3 shown in allows a container 19 with its bottle neck 13 to be introduced into the clamping region of the clamp arms (figure 1, paragraph 0029). Each arm includes an inwardly facing receiving surface configured to contact the outer surface of a bottle neck 13. The inwardly facing receiving surfaces of the two opposing arms together define a circumferential receiving region for the bottle neck. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that forming each receiving surface as a semi-annular indentation to improve conformity with the circular bottle neck geometry, such that the semi-annular indentation together forms an annular indentation for receiving the bottle neck ring.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. U.S. PG Pub. No. 20130037969 A1, February 13, 2013 (hereinafter “Ring”) and Powell, in view of claim 9, in further view of Hoare et al. U.S. PG Pub. 20140097549 A1, April 10, 2014 (hereinafter “Hoare”).
Ring is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 13, Ring fails to disclose that a valve actuator is provided, linked to the first spring operated piston configured to be guided through a guiding track, so that when the rotatable carbonation head is rotated to the dismounting position the first spring operated piston is forced to break a seal and release excess pressure. However, Hoare discloses a venting valve 130 having a reciprocating valve piston of valve element 210 that moves between a sealed position closing a vent port and an open position venting excess pressure. He reciprocating motion of the valve piston 210 is transmitted to a first actuator rod 212 which is connected by a hinge to a second actuator rod 214, such that the actuator together form a valve actuator linked to the spring-operated piston (paragraph 0070). Hoare further discloses that the piston includes a guide skirt 244 (figure 14) adapted to cooperate with surrounding head structure to guide the piston during reciprocating motion (paragraph 0076). The movement of the actuator and piston causes the valve to move from sealed position to an open position to vent pressure thereby breaking the valve seal (paragraph 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the guided motion provided by the guide skirt using a guiding track, slot, or equivalent channel structure in the carbonation head, since such guiding structure are well-known mechanical equivalents for constraining linear actuator motion and ensuring proper valve alignment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776